[allyt]

I think what he is trying to say is that the experiment conducted for the documentary was not a robust peer reviewed phenomenon, but rather a for-pop-consumption "backyard demonstration". Real science takes a lot of effort (avoiding the before mentioned sample bias being one), effort which was most likely skipped in the creation of this "pop sociology" for-mass-consumption show.

Ironically, the fake violence of reality shows they decry is precisely what they are demonstrating - an unreviewed, unpublished study which concludes "4/5 of everyone around you is a potential murderer".

[electromagnetic]

I'm sorry, this experiment has been reproduced numerous times and the initial study that produced this WAS rigorously tested AND peer reviewed. Milgram performed 19 variations of his experiment before his peer reviewed journal article was ever published, it studied the distance from authority, the distance from the subject and the authority level to measure what percentage of people performed inhumane acts.

The variables ranged from the authority being virtually over the subjects shoulder to being on a telephone. The proximity to the victim ranged from a one-way mirror to only being able to hear the person over a speaker. The level of authority went from a white coat to blue collar.

The subjects were initially polled to see how many believed they would administer the lethal voltage (1.2%), and also polled his colleagues (who came up with a similar percentage on how many people they expected would go all the way).

A later meta-analysis performed on multiple repeats of the study found the percentages to remain steady at 61-66%.

Zimbardo (who performed the Stanford Prison Experiment) made an excellent point: none of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave.

Despite disobeying authority not to hurt someone, they still required permission of the authority to help someone, which is quite possibly the more worrying aspect that is never highlighted.

[Raphael_Amiard]

That is what i've been saying :

- The milgram experiment and this pseudo-experiment do not test the same thing, they are not the same,and do not at all display the same riguor. Hence you can't talk about them as the same experiment.

- The milgram experiment is a solid experiment, that has got solid criticisms too, but i'm not at all implying it was fake.

[bmm6o]

> [they] do not test the same thing, they are not the same,and do not at all display the same riguor

Ok, but I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Is your beef with the word "experiment"? Nobody is submitting these results to a journal. If you prefer, call it a demonstration re-enacting a phenomenon that has been the subject of other experiments.

[CamperBob]

I think what he is trying to say is that the experiment conducted for the documentary was not a robust peer reviewed phenomenon

Was the Holocaust a robust peer reviewed phenomenon?

Sure, selection bias is always going to be a weakness with these types of experiments, but one thing they do prove, no matter how sloppily conducted, is that you can always find people to do this sort of thing if you look for them.

Kids who go outside to stomp worms after it rains, to borrow an image from another poster further down the thread.